jtoemke, I commend you for being able to stay courteous, mainly because I can't. My own approach would be much snarkier.

"It sounds as though the anti-development crowd is saying that 'hell is other people'. You know who originally said that? Sartre. He was French. FRENCH!!!! Do you really want to be European like him?!?"

Yep. There are definitely some tough spots along the Ford Spur for transit use, but between Randolph and St. Paul Ave it largely parallels West 7th within a block. The problem is that there was never a good hybrid option that looked at using the best parts of the CP rail spur, but West 7th or other ROW in areas where the rail spur isn't as ideal.

My original preferred alignment from 2011 included the CP ROW from Davern to just east of 35E (via a short connection through Sibley Plaza) which also worked well with connecting the Fort Road Bridge to Shepard Road, and running West 7th into Shepard Road via Davern:https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RIdKH ... sp=sharing

If you wanted to continue using the CP ROW east of Randolph, then you lose a potential station or two on 7th St near Jefferson or St. Clair. But you could use the CP ROW running down the cliff, then enter a cut-and-cover tunnel under Smith Ave immediately adjacent to the High Bridge embankment, then allowing cut-and-cover under Smith Ave all the way to downtown. A well-sited station here at Smith Ave could serve a good chunk of 7th St (from Mancinis to Grand Ave), and could have vertical circulation and a safe crossing of Shepard Road to serve redevelopment along the river landing. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1e9uY1 ... sp=sharing

Regardless, yes the CP Ford Spur is prime for transit for at least the section between St. Paul Ave and east of 35E. And no idea if that should go up the hill to the Ford Site or not (desperate attempt to tie back into the thread).

The question now is whether Ryan can gain the approval of city leaders. Officials have said the 122-acre site, fully developed, could hit $1.3 billion in value and generate more than $20 million a year in property taxes. Ryan is expected to ask for millions in public financing to pay for sewer, water and other infrastructure. Ryan also is asking for a number of amendments to the master plan, including allowing 35 single-family homes along Mississippi River Boulevard as well as row houses near a stormwater stream and a parking structure in a commercial zone.

Ryan wants to build fewer units of housing — 3,800 instead of 4,000 — with a mix of single-family homes, row houses and senior rentals. No building would be taller than six stories and 20 percent of the housing would be affordable. More than 50 acres will be publicly accessible open space, including a storm­water collection feature resembling a river flowing through the site. In addition, Ryan’s plan calls for planting 1,000 trees, creating miles of pathways and preserving two of the area’s three Little League Baseball fields.

Strib reports that Ryan will be asking for $107 million in public funding to make their proposal happen.

1. That is a lot of money.
2. Maybe I am a bit checked out, but it seems this is the first explicit discussion of public funding that has been had for this site. I think everyone assumed the developer would ask for something g, but that is a big number.
3. We should have been having this conversation years ago, so we could evaluate the costs of the neighborhood’s strident opposition to density on this site. I am under the assumption that the public portion of funding would be dramatically lower if the originally planned densities were approved. That is a critical piece of information that never entered the debate at the time.

Strib reports that Ryan will be asking for $107 million in public funding to make their proposal happen.

1. That is a lot of money.
2. Maybe I am a bit checked out, but it seems this is the first explicit discussion of public funding that has been had for this site. I think everyone assumed the developer would ask for something g, but that is a big number.
3. We should have been having this conversation years ago, so we could evaluate the costs of the neighborhood’s strident opposition to density on this site. I am under the assumption that the public portion of funding would be dramatically lower if the originally planned densities were approved. That is a critical piece of information that never entered the debate at the time.

I guess my initial thoughts go to the streets and infrastructure. I get not wanting to build like 4 new miles worth of public streets on your own. We clearly want these to be public streets and not quasi public. So I get some of it. Road projects always seem to cost crazy amounts of money so I guess I can see it.